'the creative cooking course coupled with heavenly hydro'
The Anarchives Volume 3 Issue 9
The Anarchives Published By
The Anarchives The Anarchy Organization
The Anarchives tao@lglobal.com
Send your e-mail address to get on the list
Spread The Word Pass This On...
--/\-- Innis, McLuhan
/ / \ \ Chomsky, Postman
---|--/----\--|---
\/ \/ an exam for all...
/\______/\ by jesse hirsh
-=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~
This was my take home exam. Free for use on any other exams ;)
1A) Brother Innis
Harold Innis is one of the most influential figures in communications
theory. His work in developing the field transcends contemporaries, as
his words still hold true and offer insight almost half a decade after
his death. Reading and studying Innis is a timeless experience. Unlike
the large majority of modern and post-modern communication theorists,
Innis embraced the historical context, presenting a view of
communications that was not limited to space or time.
Marshall McLuhan often referred to himself and his work as merely a
'footnote' to the work of Innis. One might almost say that Innis wrote
the word, and all writers since that point are just trying to clarify
what Innis wrote. Although on the other hand communications is the
institution that is explicitly responsible for human development
throughout what we call history. In this sense as communication
theorists, we are but mouthpieces of our time and space, much like
McLuhan's conception of the artist: antennae to receive, interpret, and
translate our collective (and mediated) reality.
It was the emphasis and reliance upon history that enabled Innis to
conceptualize and develop his communications theory. Studying the
relations of empire, and the dynamics of the colony, Innis' was led to
the underlying archetype of the empire itself: communications. His
examination of trade and the staple thesis was itself arguably early
communications theory. However it was when he replaced the medium of fur
or timber, with the medium of information that Innis realized the full
implications of his work. The concept of 'information as staple' is
really 1950 lingo for the medium is the message.
Communications theory is inherently related to linguistics, semiotics,
and other studies concerned with language. Language is clearly the basis
for, well, reality, as well as the large majority of study in
communication. McLuhan's later work, explicitly his emphasis on the
tetrad, was solely concerned with the role of logos, the metaphor, and
language within communications. McLuhan's tetrad, as well as much of the
basis of his media analysis has its origins in Innis' emphasis on time
and space.
Innis argues that the bias of communication unfolds within two areas:
time and space. Within the context of historical imperial development,
Innis argues that each new media affect either political organization
(space) or religious organization (time). Combined, both biases
contribute to order and stability, and thus the further development of
empire. Decline of empire, often results from an imbalance between these
biases, an over-extension perhaps, by one 'sense' over another, resulting
in instability and disorder. Innis also notes that when an imbalance does
occur, new media are often (inherently) introduced to return the balance,
and thus ensure order.
In his book 'The Bias of Communication', Innis makes 'A Plea for Time'.
He makes this plea at a key turning point in 'Western' history. For Innis
represents the death of Western Man. As he immersed himself in
communications theory for the last few years of his life, the world
around Innis was undergoing dramatic and transformative change.
Historical empires had been uprooted by the second world war, and this
instability could certainly be considered part of a process of religious
change. The second world war, championed by the secular American state,
was primarily based upon space and the redefinition of empire. After the
war, the world was unstable, and empire uncertain. Religion was being
redefined both in the west (post-war capitalism) and in the east
(demagogic communism/facism/stalinism). Innis pleaded for a balancing
bias of time, and he received this after his death with the new religion
of television, which balanced the biases, and enabled the emergence of
Amerikkkan hegemony.
It is from this point that Marshall McLuhan steps in as the holy sage of
the new age.
1b) Brother McLuhan
While Innis represents the death of Western Man, McLuhan represents the
birth of Electric Man. Throughout his work, McLuhan describes the
synthesis of time and space, and the reinvigoration/reinvention of
empire, via explorations of the transformations within language.
The concept of 'the medium is the message' was a hub or conduit, in which
McLuhan's explorations could be grounded. It represents the redefinition
of sense ratios with the introduction of new media.
McLuhan was not a fortune teller, nor did he comment in any way on the
future. Rather McLuhan described the process of change that was under way
during his lifetime. He placed in juxtaposition the historical literate
bias with the emerging electric bias. He examined the differences between
the visual bias of literate/Western culture, and the new
oral/audio/tactile bias of the emerging electric culture. McLuhan derived
this comparative analysis directly from Innis' concepts of time and
space: time representing the ear (electric), and the eye (literate)
representing space.
However while adopting this part of Innis' analysis of communications,
McLuhan does not adopt the historical, political, or economic basis in
which Innis grounds his own communications theory. This is the most
significant fault within McLuhan's analysis of communications. While
Innis began communications study in the context of holistic understanding of communications, McLuhan distorts the
development of communications theory by neglecting the political economic
context.
The largest consequence of McLuhan's neglect, is the current perpetuation
of the myth of decentralization in the electronic age. While McLuhan is
correct in identifying a decentralizing bias in electric media, he
neglects the role of many biases in balancing our sense ratios and
enabling order and empire.
As a result of the acoustic bias in electric media, decentralization, in
a comparative context, does occur. With the printed word, the individual
extends themselves, explicitly their eyes, onto the printed page in order
to receive the information contained therein. However with electric
media, information is transferred to the recipient, where the ear becomes
the receiver of an extended message.
The printed word offered an eye for an ear, and the electric word offers
an ear for an eye.
When using the eye we extend ourselves outward, whether towards the
printed page, or towards the external ruling elite/empire. In the
literate culture, the centre is external, something we have to extend
towards.
When using the ear however, information extends into us, whether radio,
tv, or email, as we are the centre in which the information is directed.
In the electric culture the centre is internal, empire implodes, and
thought control becomes the only method of ensuring imperial order.
Led by the eye, literate culture created the objective individual.
Led by the ear, electric culture creates the subjective tribal community.
Now while by definition this describes a process of decentralization, in
that the single external centre is now an infinite internal centre, it
ignores the role of other media, acting in combination to balance the
media environment.
Multi-media inherently fulfil the balance of biases described by Innis.
The new media of electronic delivery enable the decentralized
accessibility of information, but the reliance on old media such as the
printed word and visual content of television enforce traditional
reliance on an authority. Centralized ownership of the media ensure that
although proliferation of media may be decentralized, the content of the
media will remain dependent upon authoritative sources.
The medium is the message, and the message is electric as the centre
dissolves into the whole. The content of the medium is the historical
visual bias. It is via the interplay and interdependence of these two
biases that empire thrives today. Corporate concentration has increased
to such a phenomenal level, that arguably it has surpassed individual
human comprehension.
The tribes of the new order are more often than not products of niche
marketing, advertising, and the commodification of every aspect of our
existence.
The empire has conquered space with the global market, and will soon
conquer time with the full implementation of artificial intelligence and
the neural network. At that point the empire is omnipresent as we achieve
the total 'unified field of experience'.
Innis' plea for time has been met. Religion has become paramount, and the
market is god.
Meditating in front of radioactive tele-screens has made the world a sage.
McLuhan attended mass every morning, an indication of the weight this
knowledge subconsciously put upon his shoulders.
One idea that runs through my head is: in a tribal society, the
McLuhan/media minds are the shaman and witch doctors of the tribe.
Presently I am exploring a combination of the tao te ching and
existential philosophy.
Both religions are subjective and rely on 'ground' based models of
analysis. In this sense they lend significant insight into the emerging
and growing electronic media environment.
3) Brother Chomsky
As McLuhan shed the 'political economy' of communications, Noam Chomsky
revolutionized the field of linguistics, which itself had reverberating
effects throughout the communications field. Chomsky's approach to
communications was almost in direct contrast with McLuhan's, the only
common ground being the emphasis on language. Chomsky maintained the
political economic context as the underlying context of all his
communication work. However as these two brilliant thinkers took two
separate paths, they were still describing a common phenomena, that when
combined depict a vision of the future that causes every hard-core
revolutionary to pee-their-pants. Chomsky in an indirect manner returns
the tradition of Innis to the work of McLuhan.
One of Chomsky's most revealing analysis is the use of 'filters', by
mainstream media and vested power interests in controlling the media
environment itself. More explicitly these 'filters' are used for the
domination and control of language, itself the basis of our social
structure.
There are 5 main filters described by brother Chomsky:
1) Corporate Control. The media environment has been deemed 'proprietary'
and subject to ownership. Hence it is itself owned by a conglomeration of
global corporations. These owners are determined to create an environment
that is conducive to their needs and desires for growth, stability, and
profit. The only language that is allowed into the environment is that
which contributes to this process of domination, exploitation, and
appropriation. Power itself is the filter, as all that pass into its real
are shaped in its image.
2) Advertising. Corporate control and ownership of the media is enabled,
and supported by a technical propaganda class. Often referred to as the
'industries of thought control', Advertisers are the leaches that jockey
for corporate cash, fulfilling the dreams and wishes of the ruling class,
in order that both benefit. Advertising as an institution has an inherent
interest in maintaining hegemonic thought within the media environment,
as they act as the organizational and psychological basis for continued
development of the empire. Similar to the previous filter, the purpose of
advertising is to transform any and all into its own context, and thus
its own image. Advertising is the be all and end all of the media
environment.
3) Official and Authoritative Sources. Any information that enters the
media environment, must be 'accountable' and traceable to official and/or
authoritative sources. This filter is a by-product of the objectivity
myth, and the doublespeak of 'facts'. The media environment is no longer
literate, and subject to objective/comparative analysis within its own
context. Rather information is transferred via a stream or flow of
constant images, sounds, and effects. The filter of 'sources' are used to
maintain hegemonic control of what is designated 'fact', 'truth', or
'official response'. There is a monopoly on the word, in that only the
monopoly can give the official word. This filter is much like the first
two, in that it's purpose is self-perpetuation, and the translation of
all information into itself, and the confines of its own control system.
4) Flak and the Thought Control Police. If by chance the first three
filters fail to stop an offending bit of information from entering the
environment, there exists an entire fleet of 'watchdog' and 'advocacy'
groups who vigilantly enforce the media monopoly. They are the ones to
quickly yell out 'blasphemy' when something slips through the hegemony.
Set up by various interests of power, these 'watch dogs' protect the
private interest, masquerading as impartial third parties, funded by the
same capital centres as those who fund the advertising and broadcasting.
They are the organizations funded to act as private 'thought control
police', defending the interests of power, and ensuring that the media
environment remains stable and conducive to growth.
5) Communism, the Left, and Satan. With the market as god, anything that
remotely contains anti-market sentiment is immediately classified as
blasphemy. If anything this filter is most indicative of the religious
bias of the ruling hegemony. Unlike the other filters, this one does not
translate information into itself, but rather converts it into a
pre-ordained opposite, which results in a physical and total rejection of
the information from the media environment. While other filters serve to
integrate, this one serves to create animosity, polarization, and
increased conflict between the hegemony, and anything that opposes it.
This filter is the hell-maker. It inherently creates 'satanic' figures to
be roasted over the hegemonic fire.
While these filters are not the sole basis for the control of language,
and the maintenance of the hegemonic mind, they do play a major role in
eliminating 'systemic dysfunctions' from the media environment.
The consequences of these filters are substantial, if not catastrophic to
freedom.
Whether it be the loss of voice and expression, or even the explicit
control of minds, the media filters described by Chomsky are in part the
basis of the empire itself.
Coupled with the work of other communication theorists like McLuhan,
Chomsky's analysis depicts a world on the brink of total if not fascist
control.
This is my motivational factor. I am a full time (media) revolutionary,
for the simple reason that I do not want fascism in my present or future.
8) Brother Postman
Neil Postman is the specialized version of the non-specialist McLuhan.
Similar to a large number of post-McLuhan communication theorists,
Postman attempts to take an inherently non-specialist theory found within
'the medium is the message' and explore one aspect, explicitly the
comparison between literate culture (book) and electric culture (tv).
Postman is an English teacher, and self-proclaimed luddite (which I
should make clear is perhaps an admirable thing). His analysis of the
media is limited to his specialist perspective based upon his reliance
upon the book and printed word. 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' is a
literate analysis of the non-literate medium of television. In so doing
his analysis is limited to paraphrasing the work of McLuhan. Like many
others, Postman tries to elaborate on McLuhan, perhaps trying to make it
more accessible to a wider and different audience.
His analysis stems from the contrast of the television 'flow' and the
literate, mechanical, objective nature of the book. Postman describes
television as 'lacking a because', and a continual process of 'this
happened and then this and then this and then.. etc.' Television is a
continual stream of information, a single plane that inherently is its
own context, and is unable to adopt any other except that of the flow
itself.
This continuous stream of events, that keeps the viewers waiting for the
next event in the flow amidst commercials, is in stark contrast to the
method in which information is transferred using the printed word. The
printed word enabled objectivity and room for debate, whereas television
does not.
As an extension of the eye, the printed word was separate from the
recipient, and hence created the construct of the individual. The
individual, as a separate entity from the information was able to achieve
an objective or detached perspective, and hence engage in an analysis
that allows some degree of impartiality.
Television turns our eyes into ears as it bombards our brains with
millions of electrons each second we are exposed to it. This process of
information transfer kills the individual, ends objectivity, and with
these the notions of context and history are inherently related and
limited to the medium itself. There are no alternatives, television just
is; quality is a non-issue. Television is the dominating force that
causes our conscious and sub-conscious to submit to power and the
hegemony.
Television replaces the individual with the corporate identity, as our
identity is determined by external images which are injected into our
skulls. We define ourselves within the group in processing information
that is shared collectively. It is from this process that the act of
tribalization is enacted. However tribalization is but a pretty word for
the corporate commodification of our psyche.
Television redefines the concept of knowledge, transforming it from a
basis on historical experience and wisdom, to a spontaneous
characteristic defined by the moment and the spontaneous reaction to an
electronic environment of the 'unified field of experience'.
The purpose of propaganda in a technological society is to integrate. In
this sense television is the digestive tract of the empire. The more we
watch, the further we enter Hollywood's virtual reality. A construction
for the new empire in which we lose all relations to what was once
material reality.
If we assume that the world is a stage, then television is the leading
and perhaps only actor. As the audience we are limited to a state of
reaction. Bombarded with information, we can only hope to react in the
face of an endless continuos onslaught.
My reaction is to turn the bloody thing off.
As I've decide to save my mind!
(Although I would make television if I had the opportunity. It would be a
learning experience)
jesse
-=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~
The TAO Media Collective
http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/
-=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBMVCdcOKx8nGMX3VRAQFzugL+P9I6vvyR3hsE3S2/Q44VE/klJqD7GEXb
W8wjyW9DcyauTsqW1ilBX9Mdr/6c4BWCtCtr0Ve93CZDnMbJktSjgsf2ZdT30zqe
q53DzpiDuv0EBoXTxAH/c203UPBC9M6Z
=xszN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------------------------------------------------------
To receive the Anarchives via email send a note to
Majordomo@lglobal.com with the message in the body:
subscribe anarchives
To get off the list, send to the same address but write:
unsubscribe anarchives
Also check out:
http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/